JD Supra; Judge Facciola Says Carpenter Decision May Signal the End of the Third Party Doctrine
"The old view of the third-party doctrine must yield to new concerns
about recent technology or what CJ Roberts called “the critical issue”
of “basic Fourth Amendment concerns about arbitrary government power”
that are “wrought by digital technology.”
Overall, the Roberts Court seems to understand electronic privacy’s
importance, especially when Carpenter is coupled with the previous
decisions in US v Jones (2011), which required a warrant before police placed a GPS tracker on a vehicle and Riley v California (2014) which forbade warrantless searches of a cell phone during an arrest."
Showing posts with label reasonable expectation of privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reasonable expectation of privacy. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2018
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Facebook can track your browsing even after you've logged out, judge says; Guardian, July 3, 2017
Olivia Solon, Guardian; Facebook can track your browsing even after you've logged out, judge says
"A judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Facebook of tracking users’ web browsing activity even after they logged out of the social networking site.
The plaintiffs alleged that Facebook used the “like” buttons found on other websites to track which sites they visited, meaning that the Menlo Park, California-headquartered company could build up detailed records of their browsing history. The plaintiffs argued that this violated federal and state privacy and wiretapping laws.
US district judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, dismissed the case because he said that the plaintiffs failed to show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy or suffered any realistic economic harm or loss."
"A judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Facebook of tracking users’ web browsing activity even after they logged out of the social networking site.
The plaintiffs alleged that Facebook used the “like” buttons found on other websites to track which sites they visited, meaning that the Menlo Park, California-headquartered company could build up detailed records of their browsing history. The plaintiffs argued that this violated federal and state privacy and wiretapping laws.
US district judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California, dismissed the case because he said that the plaintiffs failed to show that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy or suffered any realistic economic harm or loss."
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Fight for privacy only beginning; Sun Sentinel, June 30, 2017
Sun Sentinel Editorial Board; Fight for privacy only beginning
"How much of your privacy are you willing to surrender in exchange for security? How concerned are you that the government has the capacity to trace your comings and goings? How bothered are you by license tag readers, surveillance cameras, red light monitors, websites that track your movements, retailers that collect and share your buying habits?...
In this age of the ubiquitous surveillance camera and the airport pat down, have we surrendered our expectation of privacy?
Is it too late to get it back? Do we feel safer without it?
Do we have a choice?"
Sunday, June 18, 2017
The Supreme Court Phone Location Case Will Decide the Future of Privacy; Mother Board, June 16, 2017
Stephen Vladeck, MotherBoard; The Supreme Court Phone Location Case Will Decide the Future of Privacy
"Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide if police can track a person’s cell phone location without a warrant. It's the most important privacy case in a generation.
For all of the attention paid to former FBI Director Jim Comey's highly anticipated testimony before the Senate intelligence committee last Thursday, the most important constitutional law development from last week took place across the street (and three days earlier), when the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in Carpenter v. United States later this year—though exactly when, we're not sure.
Carpenter raises a specific question about whether Americans have an expectation of privacy in historical "cell-site location information" ("CSLI")."
"Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide if police can track a person’s cell phone location without a warrant. It's the most important privacy case in a generation.
For all of the attention paid to former FBI Director Jim Comey's highly anticipated testimony before the Senate intelligence committee last Thursday, the most important constitutional law development from last week took place across the street (and three days earlier), when the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument in Carpenter v. United States later this year—though exactly when, we're not sure.
Carpenter raises a specific question about whether Americans have an expectation of privacy in historical "cell-site location information" ("CSLI")."
Saturday, June 17, 2017
Privacy vs. Security: Council debates merits of library video surveillance system; Planet Princeton, June 15, 2017
Andrew Goldstein, Planet Princeton; Privacy vs. Security: Council debates merits of library video surveillance system
"Crumiller asked whether library patrons have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Councilwoman Heather Howard said they do not when in public spaces, and that the security cameras have been useful when items are stolen at the library.
Butler wanted to know who has access to the surveillance recordings once they are made. She said the library is known as a place that seeks to protect personal freedom and it keeps private what people view online there. “They’ve been a staunch supporter of access to all sorts of materials people want to limit on public computers,” she said, adding that she wants more legal research done about the issue.
Councilman Lance Liverman said surveillance in the library has been standard for a long time, and has been for other public buildings. The money would go to upgrading the cameras already on site, not installing a new system, he said.
“The more I think about it the more I think the opposite (about privacy),” Liverman said. “My kids go to the library all the time. I’m worried about safety. We live in a different country today than years ago. With child abductions and whatever else may be out three I’d rather have the safety of knowing my daughter is there.”"
"Crumiller asked whether library patrons have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Councilwoman Heather Howard said they do not when in public spaces, and that the security cameras have been useful when items are stolen at the library.
Butler wanted to know who has access to the surveillance recordings once they are made. She said the library is known as a place that seeks to protect personal freedom and it keeps private what people view online there. “They’ve been a staunch supporter of access to all sorts of materials people want to limit on public computers,” she said, adding that she wants more legal research done about the issue.
Councilman Lance Liverman said surveillance in the library has been standard for a long time, and has been for other public buildings. The money would go to upgrading the cameras already on site, not installing a new system, he said.
“The more I think about it the more I think the opposite (about privacy),” Liverman said. “My kids go to the library all the time. I’m worried about safety. We live in a different country today than years ago. With child abductions and whatever else may be out three I’d rather have the safety of knowing my daughter is there.”"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)